Thanks. My actual point was that a lot of people here who are saying that climbing while altered seem to be misread as people who are straight edges. I think a lot of people who have a lot of experience doing a lot of things are discrete. That's how they stay out of trouble. When I'm not sober and people suggest one thing or another to me that 'sounds like fun' my normal response is: "I don't think that's for me right now." Some old pals and I used to be in a lot of interesting situations with interesting people. Once in the middle of an absolute giggle fest about everything, he points out something that someone should not be doing and asks if I should stop it. "I'm in no condition to be talking to anyone else about their behavior right now." He looked on for a second and turns to me, looks straight in the eye, feigns a shudder, breathes deeply and says: "I want to tell you my secret now..." (OK?) "I see dumb people... walking around with regular people. They only see what they want to see. "They don't even know that they are dumb." I guess that was where I was headed with that. In any case, I'm not sure I'd go as far as you went towards paining psychedelic users as being top tier, but I would say that no tier of society is without them. It certainly doesn't DQ anyone from being top tier. As a sober GF of mine once said when I told her about my history: "You know, it's not for me, but most of the highly intelligent people I know have at least tried a lot of that stuff... I think it is their natural curiosity and intelligence that makes it attractive to them, and their composure that keeps them from being afraid of it." So call us 75% in agreement.

Ha well spoken sir. Definitely can relate. I agree with that 100%. Thanks.

But here is something interesting. Denver's Representative Dianna DeGette -whom most righties would say is to the left of Satan- is the one who is taking up the State's Rights banner. She is introducing a bill to amend the federal law against MJ to nullify it with states that have passed laws such as CO and WA. And, she says she is doing so b/c it is a state's rights issue. So now it is going to boil down to an argument of moralists wanting to impose social interventionism and liquor and paper lobby shills versus what our buddy Shawn Mitchell (pro 64 btw) calls 'Liberty-minded' folks. My industry requires that I pass a UA at any given time, so there's the Free Market at work; as things should be. Its just fascinating that it is DeGette of all people who hopefully smacks that weasel Hickenlooper upside the head. We should get a real good picture of which of our leaders is a closet nazi as this thing progresses. Take note of who represents you.

Marc H wrote:

Fair-weather Libertarianism. So hard to come by these days. Ha

I really doubt that you understand what Libertarianism is. More socially liberal than your side if you want to know.

And if your industry decided that climbing is too risky of a sport, would that be as it should be too? Or, maybe you are gay and they are bible thumpers? Cannibis again and again has proved to be a harmless, esp compared to an activity like climbing, yet you support discriminating against it.

What would climbing on my time have to do with work? My line of work involves heavy equipment, dangerous tools and situations. You cannot be high, drunk, or even off-balance b/c of prescribed medications. You cannot perform many tasks even if you have a physical handicap that impairs safety, like deafness. Safety of everyone around is the paramount element at work. If you insist that a crane operator be allowed to operate one with anything at all in his system means you are a dangerous idiot.

If you are drug tested, you are their property! If they are telling you what to do on your free time, your ass belongs to them! Entitled? More like fascism. If co says you can puff recreationally and jobs still give au then the employer is the entitled one.

No...this mentality is sickening! People don't DESERVE jobs, those jobs are owned by the companies. If a company wants a particular person for a job (barring Title VII limitations), it has the right to only select that person, or terminate those who don't fit the required description.

"if you don't like it, leave."

Edit: state or other government hirers should NOT be given such deference, though, unless safety calls for such requirements. Public employers should have to take every precaution against taking rights away from their employees.

What would climbing on my time have to do with work? My line of work involves heavy equipment, dangerous tools and situations. You cannot be high, drunk, or even off-balance b/c of prescribed medications. You cannot perform many tasks even if you have a physical handicap that impairs safety, like deafness. Safety of everyone around is the paramount element at work. If you insist that a crane operator be allowed to operate one with anything at all in his system means you are a dangerous idiot.

Does your job allow you to go home and have a beer or two on your own time, as long as you're not inebriated when you are working? Because you certainly could fail a urine test after smoking the night before (or even week before), even if you were completely sober on the job.

Although, a big part of WA's legalization movement was the fact that in the last few years, the science of determining how much cannabis is in your system has really improved beyond urine tests, and their new law has even established DUI standards and tests that will prosecute those who drive stoned, as opposed to prosecuting those with any trace of it in their body. Seems like a pretty practical way to get away from the prohibitionary moral policing that most drug tests are based on today.

If anyone is interested, here is a great write-up of the details concerning the Washington law:

Huh? A libertarian says that legalizing pot is good even if he doesn't use it and that's an inconsistency? Either I don't understand your statement or your logic. I'm pretty consistent. I'd legalize pretty much everything that doesn't have a victim.

Tony B, you're alright with me. I agree that victimless crimes should be more or less ignored. I don't see that as "fair weather" libertarianism, at all...seems quite consistent with the sentiments of libertarianism to me

Does your job allow you to go home and have a beer or two on your own time, as long as you're not inebriated when you are working? Because you certainly could fail a urine test after smoking the night before (or even week before), even if you were completely sober on the job. Although, a big part of WA's legalization movement was the fact that in the last few years, the science of determining how much cannabis is in your system has really improved beyond urine tests, and their new law has even established DUI standards and tests that will prosecute those who drive stoned, as opposed to prosecuting those with any trace of it in their body. Seems like a pretty practical way to get away from the prohibitionary moral policing that most drug tests are based on today. If anyone is interested, here is a great write-up of the details concerning the Washington law: thestranger.com/seattle/the-st...

So there are new tests beyond the standard UA? Interesting. Out here the moralists last year were trying to devise a nanogram standard for DUI's; the lack of reliable testing (as in being able to withstand a court challenge) was the only thing that stopped it.

Huh? A libertarian says that legalizing pot is good even if he doesn't use it and that's an inconsistency? Either I don't understand your statement or your logic. I'm pretty consistent. I'd legalize pretty much everything that doesn't have a victim.

so say i am KKK and I don't want to hire black people, thats ok I own the job! or, women, or gays, or oh yeah people who smoke a plant while not at work.

Yeah chufftard, it is okay! That's the thing with society, no matter what system is in place, it is important to protect freedom of expression and freedom of choice when it doesn't actively harm others. This is especially important dealing with views or values most people disagree with.

However, Title VII prohibits employment choices based on race, sex, or sexual orientation.

Edit: good point though about the slippery slope...it is sadly unavoidable.

not operating a crane while drunk or high is obvious. are they checking for painkillers like Oxy too? and you can tie one on and show up hungover, but would never hinder your judgemnt or reaction time, because alcohol is legal. this is the slippery slope... how long do you think it will be before climbing and other dangerous sports put you in a risk factor category like smoking? employers won't want to pay the increased insurance to hire you. my point is that once you start regulating what people do on their own time, it will never stop.

Yes, they do check for ANY med that impairs, even OTC allergy or diet pills. Or mental state. or allergies. Anything that can lead to not being 100% effective and safe.

As for your other dumbshit points, are you suggesting that stoners are a class of people who have been discriminated against and deserve legal protection?

You do not think logically.

And before you assume I am just some redneck construction type, know this:

Almost everyone in construction is there because we liked partying way too much back when we were supposed to be getting an education.

I came of age in the 70's, we had inebriants back then that would blow your teeny little brain. Fresh peyote milkshakes. Hash oil from Lebanon. Thai Sticks coated in opium. All the different color microdots. Softball sized balls of cocaine that have a rose-colored glow inside, and emit a wisp of visible vapor when you split them. MDMA. I have been on several accidental Vision Quests. And this is the generation that is setting the standards by which you punks must abide.

My illogical, dumbshit point is that cannabis is proven to be safer than alcohol on every level, yet you and Ben think it is fine keep people that smoke out of the workforce and keep alcoholics in.

Once, a long time ago, we had a few drinkers and other sorts of party types in the lab I ran. I was the manager for the engineers, and the techs reported to someone else. Once one of the techs came into work and shortly thereafter fell over. The cause was pretty clear, to put it lightly. He was not my employee, but I was there. I suggested that he call his wife for a ride and report going home sick and to take a long hard look at where his life was headed and not come back to work until he was "well." He eventually did come back to work and quit the crap he was into, insofar as I could tell. His Monday attendance record got better too.

Yeah, I or his boss could have had him fired. It doesn't matter what inebriant he was on, he showed up to work like that, and that matters. It's a no-fly zone. I don't give a shit what anyone does or says on their time off, but you can't come into a lab with dangerous equipment and chemicals like that.

As a manager, I told my staff I didn't care if they had a beer with lunch. I drank one in front of them on multiple occasions. We have kegs at company functions. But I was extremely consistent in the guidance "If you can drive, you can work, if you can not drive, you can not work here. And if you are hung over, you can not work well here, and if you have an attendance problem on Mondays, you are not reliable enough to work here."

You can't go to work dunk. You can't go to work stoned either. If your manager can tell that you are altered and he doesn't like it, kiss your job (and your career) goodbye. HR, Legal, and the courts will all back the boss up. NOBODY can be forced to accept the liabilities of an altered person in the workplace if an element of danger can be substantiated. Companies are also entitled to refuse employment to people who are law breakers... so in the meantime (until it is really legal), be careful and don't be silly about it. That is one difference between pot and liquor right now.

I was arguing the idea that employers 'own' jobs and are therefore have carte blanche in hiring. yes, courts have made laws against this. of course the race and gender discrimination is illegal now, but it wasn't 50 years ago. re-read the post, and try to understand perspective-taking, mr. stupid stupistan.

Sounds to me like, once again, you're saying that turning down a stoner for a job is the same as turning down somebody because of their race, gender, or sexual orientation. And by pointing out that "it wasn't illegal 50 years ago" to discriminate based on race, you're claiming that our society has come to realize (rightfully so) that we were allowing unethical restrictions in the private workforce (and I guess implying that, sometime in the future, the same "freedom" to smoke pot should also be allowed).

If I'm understanding wrong it's because you're unable to make a clear point, making you stupid. If I'm understanding correctly, then my previous conclusion is still correct (you're stupid).